Member

That happens to be one of my favorite generation of Mustang — I love that it combines the stout 5.0 with the looks of an actual Mustang. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best of the old Muscle Cars since it's still fundamentally based on '60s technology.

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair

@mgerry1970 welcome to stangnet, I see you are already active in the 5.0 forums, see ya back over there.@hrspwrjunkie : why do you think the sn95 or even the fox platform is anything close to 60's technology?
fundamentally they are night and day. The only similarity is the stick rear end and the fact they both have wheels and tires.

Member

I think the Foxs and SN-95s are similar in tech to '60s Muscle Cars for a number of reasons — especially relative to current car designs.

First: The 5.0 is still just a '68 302, albeit with a hydraulic roller cam, electronic fuel injection, pedestal rockers, some block lightening, and minor improvement in combustion/sealing technology.

Second: The T5 transmission, while shifted via internal rail, is still just a basic manual transmission and a direct evolution of the Ford Toploader.

Third: The Ford 8.8" is so close to a Chevy 10- or 12-bolt in design and functionality that they basically stuck a different brand on it – they both use Eaton technology.

Fourth: The monocoque, while far stiffer than a '60s Mustang, hadn't changed a great deal in shape, form, and function from the first Mustangs.

Fifth: The rear suspension, outside of coil spring placement, is very similar to the early Chevelles.

Sixth: The removable K-member concept is reminiscent of late '60s early '70s Chrysler designs.

I'm not saying they are absolutely identical, but based on the above criteria, the 5.0s were the last iteration (evolution) of the same technology that powered '60s cars. Afterwards, that tech was abandoned for more modern, clean-sheet designs.

I'm also not saying that modern cars aren't just iterative of everything that came before — because all technology is iterative in some way — but many of the earlier design elements have been abandoned at this point. Even the GM LS engines and Chrysler Hemis — which are closer to their predecessors with push-rod technology than Ford's OHC designs — are clean sheet as well.

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair

While you are right, you are still wrong but let's leave it at that mostly because every year (or nearly every year) things are changed/updated do to better metals and technology in general.
i see you have a vintage mustang, if it is stock then the differences in ride and drive compared to a stock fox is night and day.

Member

While you are right, you are still wrong but let's leave it at that mostly because every year (or nearly every year) things are changed/updated do to better metals and technology in general.
i see you have a vintage mustang, if it is stock then the differences in ride and drive compared to a stock fox is night and day.

New Member

That happens to be one of my favorite generation of Mustang — I love that it combines the stout 5.0 with the looks of an actual Mustang. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best of the old Muscle Cars since it's still fundamentally based on '60s technology.

thank you I'm new to this so I'm still trying to figure it out but I will go to the farm and thank you very much for responding to me hope you guys having a blessed and thank you very much for responding to me hope you guys having a blessed day